Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    But you're just arguing about semantics here, any conflict can be called a 'war'. Nuclear weapons make 'large scale' wars unprofitable and infeasible, that is the whole point. A nuclear country could never be hostiliy captured so long as it was willing to use its nuclear weapons, there country is assured against large millitary attacks and this means they wouldn't necessarilly need a large millitary force as a defence.
    I agree; I just thought you were claiming nukes prevented any conflict arising involving a nuclear power.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    What reasoning Melancholy? All you do is spout opinion, I haven't heard one iota of rational for it all.
    I don't just spout opinions; heck, some of my reasoning was highlighted directly after the part you quoted:

    "The fact that just a few changes in my genetics could have made me a female or a person with slightly different skin colour, makes me believe that humans, disabled, or otherwise, deserve the same status in terms of their subjection under the law in terms of their basic human rights".

    That's just one example which kind of proves you wrong and shows you to be a liar when you say that I didn't offer any form of reasoning.

    You don't get how this whole debating thing works do you? You're the one making the claim, you are the one with the burden of proof.
    Well, not really. It is you who is making the claim that somehow women shouldn't be entitled to equal rights. It is you who draws the distinction between two entities and therefore you who needs to demonstrate why they're not entitled to human rights that men enjoy. It would be up to you, for example, to show why a black person would not be a human in light of my reasoning why they are humans (and don't even dare come back with: "what reasoning", because I've just demonstrated one example to do with genes. Unfortunately it seems to be you who doesn't understand how to 'debate', never mind spelling on a consistent basis

    Your logic is 'why not'? Ha ha ha. I wouldn't talk to you Melancholy if you didn't make me laugh so much. Boring Melancholy, I don't give a **** about your liberal perseptive and I don't want to hear about it untill you can give a justification for it. Why do you even come here? Surely the whole point is to discuss the validity of our political positions?
    What's wrong with citing 'why not'? Surely, if you're going to suggest that 'Dave' for example, should not be counted as a human, then it's up to you judge why he is guilty of 'not being a human' before you declare that you can kill him like any other creature. Not only are you lying in the sense that it wasn't the only justification I gave, but you're mentally screwed when it comes to the matter of 'burden of proof'.

    Having 'men and women are not entitled to the same human rights' is problematic because you are implicitly making a distinction between two groups; and it is precisely that which needs to be justified by you.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    The whole Palestine-Israel conflict is racial, so is probably some of the rational for the Iraq war, America doesn't goto war without Aipac prodding it.
    Let me highlight this quote as an example of rather strange bunch of sentences. Your first statement is that the 'whole Palestine-Israel conflict is racial'. You then proceed with unrelated sentences to do with the Iraq war and Aipac, none of which demonstrate that your first sentence is actually believeable; and equally none of which demonstrate why I'm wrong when I say it is not racial. Note that I'm now proceeding to repeat my explanation that people don't just choose sides because they 'prefer one race over the another' and the subject is therefore not entirely racial.

    Nuclear weapons prevent wars that is a undeniable truth and you know it. When was the last time a nuclear nation has been attacked? Nuclear weapons secure the exsistence of coutries and prevent wars, they are a good thing.
    Saying, "that is true and you know it" is a sign of a desperate person trying to make his opinion true. I don't think I denied that nuclear weapons can prevent war sometimes. Yet you're fooling yourself if you think that they haven't even provoked war sometimes (look at America putting them in Poland, or the USSR putting them in Cuba; examples of tensions). Without nuclear weapons in the hands of the USSR and North Korea and even the USA, I'd feel a lot safer; but I don't think they prevent war on most occasions. The 20th century has seen more tragedies than the 19th century, most arguably; and you have a warped view of history if your only comeback to that is "what??!! no! there wuz like loadz of wars in 19th century". Nuclear weapons most certainly are not a good thing. Trying dealing with an Iran with a nuclear weapon in its hands, or some country who has just happened to elect a religious nutcase.

    The burden of proof is on you. Lol all your 'mature' nonesense falls to pieces when you need to give it some rational.
    Erm, I'll ask again: where is your rebuttal? By its inherent nature, a rebuttal is in response to my argument, which shows that I have, actually, created an argument for you to look at. Stop your empty rhetoric and actually give me something worth reading, k?

    But you're just arguing about semantics here, any conflict can be called a 'war'. Nuclear weapons make 'large scale' wars unprofitable and infeasible, that is the whole point. A nuclear country could never be hostiliy captured so long as it was willing to use its nuclear weapons, there country is assured against large millitary attacks and this means they wouldn't necessarilly need a large millitary force as a defence.
    Look, I'll make this brief. You said that nuclear weapons prevent wars. You were then given the example of Israel being constantly attacked. Now you're back tracking by redefining 'war'.

    ----

    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    This has nothing to do with 'natural' situations. He made the claim, so he must back it up, that is how debate works.

    Excuse me for asking for some intelligible reasoning (notice the word 'intelligible' there Melancholy) between the spitting liberal bigotry and prejudice.
    Not only is the burden of proof on you to demonstrate why one group is an 'exception', I actually did post why they should be the same group anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Welll... weve gone right off topic havent we all, you obviously cant have an adult discussion without it turning into a slanging match about who's more mature or who's opinion is more respectable, (its me by the way)
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.